Rathpig
The funny thing is Nick, you refuse to answer anything that shows the gap in your mystical-perspective armor. You by necessity must deny science because science doesn't operate on the level of emotional assumption. You give lip-service to science as if you would be open-minded, but the logical conclusion of you mystic-view precludes the scientific method.
Have you ever considered that the drive to "understand" our universe is partially an emotional need? For some reason you are trying to create a divide between faith and reason that doesn't exist. other than through secular conditioning.
To return to the OP, you mention Dawkins in contrast to Weil. The only fault one could ever find in Dawkins' approach is that he does not embrace assumed "facts" not in evidence. For your perspective, Nick, you call this "denial". How curious. You assert an entire ethereal universe without the slightest support, and then attack those who dare question this construct as "deniers".
No. Dawkins takes a moral position based on emotional experience. He wrote:
The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference
What appears as pitiless indifference promoting a negative emotional response is really the result of a lack of perspective. You have failed to suggest that you even know what relative perspective means.
However, you refuse to even discuss why you yourself deny Harry Potter or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Doesn't this make you a "denier"? And isn't the real discussion merely a matter of scale?
While there is no contradiction between Christianity and Magick, and a logical case can be made for both, it cannot be done for our favorite flying noodle. I know the theoretical basis for Christianity and magick and their union from the point of view of laws is obvious. However, until somepone provides the logical theoretical basis for this flying pasta and or the ancient emotional need for it, I don't believe it.
You seem to want to deny what you have not experienced first and ask questions later while I ask questions without first needing to deny as part of an emotional mindset.
Which "God" is the true God? Are all god-constructs equal incarnation as the deists often propose? Isn't any other approach you take merely splitting hairs over another's level of denial versus your own?
The true God or God-head is the ONE within which all others reside.
Are you not an atheist as well, Nick? Which gods do you deny?
Not believing is not the same as denying. I don't believe in the false god's of the Great Beast being able to satisfy the need for meaning that initiates with the true God.
Yet it would be naive to deny one of the Beasts gods such as money for example that people sacrifice themselves for as non-existent.
Now least you forget while misusing the term "logic", logic is merely a methodology of inquiry. The term refers to a systematic, non-contradictory approach to sets of proposals. It isn't a magical term, and it is in no way applicable to this news story.
Of course it applies. I can give a very logical argument as to why she responded appropriately to an assault on her self esteem which is a valued attribute in our culture providing part of its cultural perspective.. Since nothing matters but feeling good, logic, and direct scientific proofs, she should be applauded for her actions from our logical earthy perspective rather than condemned now as she is by many.
